That's smart, guys. Real smart.

And I mean in the "S-M-R-T, that spells smart" way.

Okay, to set the scene, waaaaaay back in September of 2009 (you know, the Dark Ages), the flavored tobacco ban became law. This ban was intended to try and help cut down on underage smoking. So, because of this ban, cigarette companies couldn't produce or market flavored cigarettes any more. However, this ban did not apply to other tobacco products.

"Oh! A loophole!"

So, it turns out that Camel is test-marketing a few items like "Camel Orbs" which looks like breath mints or candy, "Camel Strips" which looks like breath freshening strips, and "Camel Sticks" which look a bit like toothpicks.

Now, think back to when you were a kid. How often did you look in your mom's purse for candy? Well, I'm going to bet, every few days. So what's going to happen when Junior finds a packet of these Camel Orbs? Well, unless he knows what they are, I'm betting he's going to down them like Tic-Tacs.

And Camel (well, RJR Tobacco) isn't the only company test-marketing these things. How long before the lawsuits, I wonder?

Honestly, the Christian group should lose this one

Court to hear arguments on campus Christian group

See, here's the thing. Refusing to acknowledge the CLS as a "recognized campus group" is not taking away their freedom of religion or freedom of association. All it's doing is saying "you can't get funding from the university or any of the other benefits of being a recognized campus group". They're still free to practice their faith, still free to associate with like-minded individuals, and so on.

They're just not going to get university funding, or other benefits (as someone who has been an officer in a couple of campus organizations, albeit not at that campus, those benefits are probably things like being able to reserve rooms/space on campus, hold fundraisers on campus grounds, reserve block seating at university sports events, and so on).

So, yeah, SCOTUS should come down and say "Nope, the non-discriminatory practices are what is 'more right' in this case." Of course, considering the current make-up of the court, that all depends on where Anthony Kennedy falls on this issue, as he's usually the swing vote. But we'll have to see. (Pretty much certain that Alito and Scalia will rule in favor of the religious group, though.)

One does not simply walk into Iceland.

yoinked from theweaselking

*facepalm*

Tom Tancredo apparently didn't think he was enough of a pustulant cock wart.

And he delivered this speech in South Carolina, too.